User talk:Quaeler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Quaeler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1 Hello - you are delete link from article about complex numbers
2 Tagging of fictional rabbits
3 December 2007
4 Thank you
5 i can NEVER post a link from my blog is it?
6 WP:AIV report and IPs
7 The noodle house
8 Rollback
9 Your help or advice
10 solar cell
11 User talk:Briankohl
12 Applause
13 Glossary of Graph Theory
14 Concern over AIV report
15 Reporting vandalism guidance
16 Hello - you are deleting my page and accusing me of vandalism
17 Thank you (I think)

[edit] Hello - you are delete link from article about complex numbers

Good day. You are delete link from article about complex numbers.

I have placed the reference to our program for calculations with complex numbers in the form of formulas, and you have removed it. We with the brother have written this program that it was to whom somebody useful. We do not ask for this program of money and we give it absolutely free. Why our program is not worthy to enter into section of external links about complex numbers? We the truth very much tried creating this program and we consider that it could be useful to much. Sorry for my english.

WBR Nobuenhombre 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)nobuenhombre

hello - yes (and no need to apologize for your english!). the problem with the link you added is that it is not clear what is especially unique or noteworthy about the application. if you google '"complex number" calculator', you get many hits. what is it that makes your application worthy of being linked to the wikipedia article and not these (i am not insulting your work, i am just trying to point out that there needs to be a reason to start hosting links to the dozens of complex calculators on the wiki page). Quaeler 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of fictional rabbits

Actually, they weren't tagged in error, but intentionally. The stated scope of the group includes all articles in the Category:Lagomorphs and its subcats, and both of those articles fall in such a subcat. Basically, this project was proposed for enthusiasts of rabbits and rodents, rather than just as a purely biological one. From personal experience, I do know that animal enthusiasts go well beyond the mere facts about the animals to include fictional animals as objects of interest as well. Also, those articles are going to be contained in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group/Articles list, which I hope the members will use to check on recent changes, including vandalism, in those articles. Lastly, their is a list contained in one of our articles which lists fictional rabbits and hares, including both of those two. By keeping tabs on both articles, we will probably be able to ensure that content directly relevant to the character specific article which might be included in the general article will see its way to the character article as well. However, I would like to point out that the group would not seek or accept developing the article in any way which would place undue weight on any particular kind of content. Personally, those two articles are not so overwhelmingly important to me that I will seek to engage in any sort of edit conflict over them. So, if you choose to restore the banners, please do so. If not, I will eventually remove the articles from the project's watch list. 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Brianga (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, to repeat the above - we can only block if they have received a level 4 warning, ideally within 48 hours. Three edits (ever) isn't really enough! Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You were very constructive in your example, and I appreciate that. I am new and it is much better to have a relevant lesson like yours than to be tagged immediately and called names. You were nice, taught me something, and I thank you. It does help. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i can NEVER post a link from my blog is it?

so i can NEVER post a link from my blog is it? even if its quite related and offers more information? even if the user viewing the wikipedia article would get more info?

okay so why dont i publish the same content in my blog in the article page? well i dont want some of the content in my blog to be copyleft - thats the main reason

i have seen so many ppl post irrelevant and broken links in wikipedia articles

eg - in the same unawatuna page there are several dead links -> http://www.bufferzonenews.com/cms/?q=image/tid/22 http://www.unawatuna2612.com/ http://origin.dailynews.lk/2002/09/14/fea08.html http://lakdiva.org/clarke/unawatuna.html

you should spend some time going cleaning those links!

i have another question... can someone else post the same link from my site? is that allowed? because the content seems relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehal (talk • contribs) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please do the following:

Please use complete words, formatting, and style like other edits you see so that your comments don't look sloppy (if for no other reason than people tend to treat childish looking comments with less value than more nicely formatted comments)
Use four tildes to sign whatever you leave behind (luckily there are automated bots to clean up after you; however personal responsibility is better).
Please follow the time-ordering of edits; in many pages, this page included, the newest content goes at the end.

With respect to the points you raise:

Your logic of 'other people are behaving badly and/or worse than i am' is faulty. Were i to catch them in the act, i would stop it - like i have with you. That being said, i don't have enough free time to go back and fix every article that needs fixing.
Please read the description of external links to be avoided on Wikipedia. Reading it again very quickly, your links definitely fall afoul of #12, almost certainly #14, probably #1, and possibly #4 - at least.
Lastly, a link that violates the above enumeration is in violation regardless of whether the author of a blog, their mother, their best friend, an enemy, or a stranger, submits the edit.

Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV report and IPs

Hello there! Just wanted to say, great job on the encyclopedia, and good job reporting to AIV! Just wanted to drop you a note. Most of the time, IP addresses are dynamic, and may switch physical connections from time to time, sometimes even as often as every time a certain router reconnects. Static addresses may also change hands frequently; for example, a library's IP address is likely to be used by hundreds of people daily. When dealing with IPs, try not to label them as vandalism-only, as it is very rare that they actually are. Most of the time, just the user of the IP is the vandal. I wanted to clear this up for future reference. Hope it helps! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The noodle house

It's NOT VANDALISM if the author of an article blanks it. If you're going to be a self-appointed vandal fighter, you need to be a hell of a lot more careful to check the article history. Now why don't you go apologize to User:Fayaz820, the poor newbie that you just bit? Pairadox (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading the caveats given which state "Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself..."; please point me to better guidelines in efforts to be a hell of a lot more careful... Quaeler (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD, specifically G7, which states "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Pairadox (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:BITE definitely applies here also. There is no reason to jump to a level 4 warning right off the bat. Pairadox (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh - that's where i'd disagree in the situation. Unfortunately the edit history is gone with the deletion of the article (it appears - again, magic link: welcomed); i was under the impression from the edit history that the page went like: creation(user) -> marked for CSD(other) -> alteration(user) -> blanking(user) .. in that context, if true - and with the added context of the not-known-to-be-false-at-the-time belief that blanking is disallowed - i'm content in the belief that there was nothing egregious in the action. Quaeler (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessen the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your help or advice

I am financially clueless and my very finance savvy brother just had me sign up online for a brokerage account then I came here and did a search that went nowhere. Of course far be it from me to suggest it should have its own page, but shouldn't it have at least redirected me to where I wanted to go? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya sure - it could redirect to broker for example. Please feel free to make a redirect! Quaeler (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] solar cell

Why a 14th month old article making predictions on technology is not a good choice ? Why did you delete the 4 links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.12.72 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your edit. Please take a look at WP:EL; it's not apparent that the link added anything to the article (issue #1). Additionally, the state of art of photovoltaic work is changing sufficiently enough that an article which makes predictions about technology and is over a year old is not of substantiative value to a wikipedia article (issue #2 - but feel free to debate this on the article's discussion page). Lastly, it's an entry in a blog - complete with broken images (issue #3). Quaeler (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, especially about "sufficiently enough", but OK. I didn't sign my edit because I don't have an account. 82.67.12.72 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring the issue up on the discussion page for the article if you disagree - a more public discussion may find you in common company and result in a change. Quaeler (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your advise. 82.67.12.72 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Briankohl

Just check the history page, you have noticed that General note: Vandalism on Babe Ruth. (TW)) is indicated that I've also warned this user about the article Babe Ruth and revert vandalism by using Twinkle. But possible an error ocuured so TW added the General note: Vandalism on Babe Ruth. (TW)) but the warning and revert doesn't work. Thank you, Tanvir che (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applause

Nice try in defense of style -- i.e., in reverting the revision of 13:55, 14 March 2008, at the Charles Manson page. As you see, the grating change quickly returned. Tried to show edit-summary solidarity with you as I adjusted it, to make sure the possessive form, at least, was correct.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke.. that being said "Tate friend" is a widespread colloquialism as well. Quaeler (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure my message was clear. What I meant was that "Tate friend" seems to me to be the correct form. Your reversion to it -- on the basis that "Tate's friend" is poor English -- indicated to me that you think "Tate friend" is better, too. My own contribution was simply to add an apostrophe to "Tates friend," after the editor who originally inserted it defied your reversion and inserted it again.71.242.159.196 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, ok. Yes - we're in agreement. You should have just reverted the schmuck's re-addition - but i suppose a compromise is definitely more diplomatic... Quaeler (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary of Graph Theory

You undid my addition of a reference in the Glossary of graph theory. I did not fully understand your reason. Was it because of the external link to the publisher's website? If so, would removing that link have made the addition OK? I did not link to a bookstore, but to the actual publisher. I don't see how it falls under any of the categories of WP:EL:

4 Links normally to be avoided
4.1 Advertising and conflicts of interest
4.2 In biographies of living people
4.3 Sites requiring registration
4.4 Non-English language content
4.5 Redirection sites

Please advise. I'm new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarond144 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for discussing this here. If you could sign your additions to talk pages with four tildes in a row, that would be great (there are bots that clean up after people, but...). With respect to your addition - the main issue i had was: from WP:EL, wiki articles are not meant to become a laundry list of external links. To that extent, both the letter of law (you adding another link to an external site) and the spirit of the law (another external item (in this case, another text on the article's subject material)) seem to be falling afoul. Additionally, you had placed these links in the 'reference' section, though i couldn't see any place in the article which cited the text as a reference.

The litmus test is basically "does this addition add anything new to the article which wasn't already present" -- very technically, of course, yes (the article didn't mention this book). Otherwise, there is already a sampling of graph theory texts in the reference section, and as the article should, and will, never become a complete listing of all graph theory texts, there appears to be no reason another text should be added.

If you wanted to be thoroughly smarmy, you could always add actual content to the article which is taken from the text (under appropriate copyright and bla bla bla), thereby having a valid reason to cite the text.. but again, at this point, since your original intention has been seen (to just add the book to a list of graph theory books), that approach would leave a bit of a bad taste in one's mouth. Quaeler (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This was my first addition to a talk page. I do not recall being prompted for a signature. But now I see how it can be done. It's not so obvious until after you've seen it and done it once before.

What's more at question, then, is why the other textbooks (and the text within square brackets containing superlatives) aren't deleted, leaving just the article referenced. Why THAT particular sampling of textbooks?

Why use ad hominems like smarmy? Have I been anything other than polite? If the end result of your bringing the flaws of my contribution to my attention improves the article by adding good content from a legitimate source, why should that source not be correctly referenced? Aarond144 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the article, it seems even the reference to Rome, the first reference, shouldn't qualify. Better to remove all the references unless the article content is provable to be from those specific sources. Otherwise the listing is entirely arbitrary.Aarond144 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(Another nice stylistic thing is to indent with the colon (which you can see being done when you edit text) - it keeps the discussion in the traditional threaded format style - i've edited your entry to keep in that style). So i used that ever important word "If" prior to the smarmy -- 'IF you wanted to be smarmy, [THEN] you...' Since you haven't done that THEN chunk, you haven't qualified for smarmy. That being said, i stand behind strongly the notion that such a tactic would be smarmy.

As far as pre-existing crap in that article, i agree that it's definitely got stuff that should be cleaned out - that what you were doing wasn't dirtying an otherwise pristine article. Digressing briefly: there seems to be two types of work on wikipedia articles -- work that prevents things from getting worse, and work that improves. For me, some articles i do solely the former and other articles i do both; for the article in question, i do just the former. ('just because i leave bad material, doesn't endorse the behaviour'). Should someone like to do the latter, including issues you've cited - it would be great. If it's a large change, it should probably be mentioned on the article's discussion page first. Thanks.. Quaeler (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting the hang of things re indentations and signatures. How long should a suggestion to remove all the references "season" before it's reasonable for me to do the edit? If there's no response to a suggestion raised in discussion, may that be considered assent after a reasonable amount of time, say a couple of weeks?Aarond144 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, i'd definitely couch it as "I plan on doing X unless there are objections prior to date Y", where Y being a week away is plenty of time. Quaeler (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concern over AIV report

Hello. Your recent WP:AIV report of 74.32.114.167 (talk · contribs) concerns me. The IP's last two edits were at 12:35 and 12:43, however in the span of 60 seconds, you issued three escalating warnings ([1], [2], [3]) and then two minutes later reported the IP to AIV [4]. Escalating levels of warnings are supposed to be issued if an editor ignores the previous warning and persists in vandalism, rather than being slapped on all at once. Additionally as noted in AIV criteria #3, {{uw-voablock}} "vandalism only account" blocks cannot be levied against IPs. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting take. In general, i issue a warning for each chunk of work i need to do to repeal someone's nonsense. Quaeler (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Issuing multiple levels of warnings simultaneously is a violation of WP:AGF. An escalated warning should only be issued if an editor ignores the previous warning. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting vandalism guidance

I've seen a lot of vandalism on a page and I'm puzzled about where I can add Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. to the Edit Summary. I want to do it correctly but I'm more of a visual learner.

I'm trying to get it to look somewhat like what you did to my first edit on the Graph Theory Glossary: (Reverted good faith edits by Aarond144; See WP:EL. using TW)

In this case I'm looking to say something to the effect of (Reverted vandalism by 76.121.182.146; see Template:Uw-vandalism3)

I'm not using Twinkle.

Hello (please sign your edits using four tildes in a row). I'd recommend using Twinkle. Quaeler (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello - you are deleting my page and accusing me of vandalism

From the accusation:

Edits to interrobang continually trying to add incredibly rare made up word of 'quexclimation' (google matches 1 hit); when 192.92.94.23 reached final warning state concerning their re-adds, this user magically appears and continues the campaign.

I am misterfitzy - I have categorically stated that I made up the term: "Quexclimation Mark". I also pointed out that there are tons of words in use today in the English language that were simply "made up" and have made their way into common parlance. The reason I created the account was because the IP 192.92.94.23 is essentially anonymous and I wanted to take that anonymity away. I am as entitled as anyone to coin a phrase or term and put it forward for use. Quaeler is going against my right to free speech in his repeated removals of the term from the Interrobang page. When I got sick of Quaeler removing the edits I created my own page describing the term I created. I also fully referenced all non-original content used within the article so there can be no calls for plagiarism in this case. To my amazement Quaeler had the audacity to remove the page I created. In answer to Quaeler accusations:

Edits to interrobang continually trying to add incredibly rare made up word of 'quexclimation' (google matches 1 hit); I made this word up and I think it is just as valid as Interrobang, sounds better and also makes more sense.

when 192.92.94.23 reached final warning state concerning their re-adds, this user magically appears and continues the campaign. I added my username because I didn't want to be simply a number while Qaeler was vandalising my contributions to wikipedia.

I would like to make the following accusation against Qaeler. Qaeler is guilty of 1. valdalising all of my contributions to wikipedia 2. going against my right to free speech

Misterfitzy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your case; in the future, please observe chronological ordering and styles for adding new comments. With respect to your claims, you don't appear to understand what Wikipedia is for as far as content; it is not a place for the invention of new idea, just chronicalling existing ideas. As such, as fantastic as you imagine your new word to be, it doesn't yet belong here. Should it have caught on in a few years, feel free to re-add it. Quaeler (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you (I think)

Editor Peachey88 posted a note on my talk page saying that "there is no need" to chance the word "references" to "footnotes." You then added a comment saying "If there's been a wikipedia discussion somewhere (as opposed to your opinion that it should be that way), please cite it here." I think your comment was directed to Peachey88 and not to me. Is that correct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually (sorry), i was siding with that Peachey88 person; there seems to be not only a majority precedent of using 'References', but also that wiki administrative page on footnotes cites only the usage of "Notes" and "References" - not "Footnotes". So i was inquiring as to whether there had been a wiki editors discussion somewhere in which it was agreed upon to do a changeover to a new usage. In retrospect, i shouldn't have indented my edit addition on your talk page :- / Sorry for the confusion. Quaeler (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll take this issue up at the Wikipedia talk:Footnotes page. (Hmm, the page discussing this topic is called "Footnotes" - what a silly thing to call it.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.